Monday, June 12, 2006

Round Two...Ding

I have been having some interesting conversations regarding the benefits that same-sex marriage will have on human society with those at Know Thy Neighbor.org.

My most recent conversation regarding the question of why Tom Lang, Director of Know Thy Neighbor (KTN), posted the names of those who signed the traditional marriage amendment last Fall was answered with not one word coming from Tom.
His inability to answer the question led me to the conclusion that KTN is a website thats sole purpose is non-other than to intimidate and harass those who wish to engage in democracy and affiliate themselves with a cause. This of course is a violation of one's civil rights here in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
More to come with what "progress" KTN is making across the U.S. in regards to intimidating Florida residents who are now collecting signatures to put the question of traditional marriage before the voters in 2008.
Now, to the thread of my second question of how same-sex marriage can exsist in our human society.
There was some confusion with a statement that I mentioned on KTN and in which caused confusion with a John and a Christopher:
Christopher and John,
I will make myself clearer with my statement of:
“Not one society on this planet has existed based on a homosexual culture.”
Even if you have an evolutionary, naturalistic worldview, marriage has been the universal and most efficient creator of a healthy next generation, which is why it is the norm in all human civilizations. It works best for producing and raising the next (healthy) generation of humanity.
Successful evolution would seem to demand that we shouldn’t stray from heterosexual bonding. Again, no person who claims to be homosexual came into this world as a result of homosexual coupling. Since a homosexual couple cannot pass on their genes together, homosexuality disqualifies itself as a mechanism for facilitating evolutionary human progress.
So yes Christopher, you had it right with your first inclination of:
“If you mean that a homosexual culture would not be able to last long because of reproduction, then you might possibly be right.”
I am not focusing on the ACCEPTANCE factor of homosexuality in any culture. I am focusing on that there is not one human society, advanced or primitive, civilized or uncivilized, where homosexual marriage has existed as a normative part of family.
Yes, we see great diversity in the ways different cultures do family as you are pointing out. This, I agree with. From the family that lives in a brownstone in Manhattan to those that live in the jungles of New Guinea. But for all the diversity we see, it isn’t as diverse as you might think. The main differences among families around the world are (1) number of partners in the marriage and (2) division of labor between male and female. (Edward Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage).
If you spun a globe and randomly stabbed your finger down on any inhabited landmass and went there to observe its family model at any time in history, you would find that they do marriage as a heterosexual union between man and women. You would never find one that didn’t. There may be other differences, but the nature of marriage bringing male and female together is constant and universal.
I am not arguing with you if homosexuality is right or wrong. Homosexuals can do whatever they want to do, but when you start redefining the institution of marriage that has existed even before any government or religion has ever existed for the purposes as explained above than people are going to defend what works. Society does not want to try to reinvent the wheel for a small subgroup of people who are screaming for employment benefits and equal rights.
Go elsewhere for these things, do not try and become equal with an institution that does not progress or work with the homosexual behavior.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com